Reinforcing containment

Before we begin, watch this video:

As reported in the Straits Times, Member of Parliament Sylvia Lim (Workers' Party) and Nominated Member of Parliament Siew Kum Hong used this incident as an example to register concerns about the Public Order Act (POA), among whose provisions is one that empowers the police to stop people from filming.

Both Ms Lim and Mr Siew cited the case of Mr Ian Tomlinson to illustrate the potential pitfalls of filming restrictions.

Mr Tomlinson, a 47-year-old newspaper vendor, died from a heart attack two weeks ago, after getting caught up in a protest while on the way home.

The incident took place in London on the eve of the G-20 summit.

Ms Lim pointed out that British police initially said he had not clashed with them. This claim was disproved by a passer-by's video clip showing a policeman shoving him in the back.

This triggered an investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

Ms Lim asked: 'If the above case were to happen here, how does this Government expect truth and justice to prevail without the presence of footage recorded by public-spirited citizens?'

-- Straits Times, 14 April 2009, MPs call for
checks and balances

Second Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam said in reply:

'Mr Siew's perception is that all police officers will behave illegally. They'll be smart and they'll direct deletion because they don't want a record of what they have just done.

'I come from the opposite perspective. I think we come from the perspective that our officers are fundamentally honest...'

Where abuses may occur, he said the Act requires the officer to give reasons to justify why he directed the deletion.

-- ibid.

That is not a good enough assurance, because by then the footage would have been deleted. Whatever it had recorded would be much harder to prove, and would likely become a case of one person's word against the police's. Given Shanmugam's starting premise that officers are fundamentally honest, wouldn't that mean that in the absence of proof, he will give the benefit of doubt to the police? 

Another provision of the POA empowers the police to tell anyone to get out of any particular patch of public space. It's called "Move-on orders". As reported, the scope of these powers is like this:

It empowers a police officer to issue a move-on order to a person whose behaviour was or has been:

1. interfering with trade or business at the place;

2. disorderly, indecent, offensive or threatening;

3. disrupting the peaceable and orderly conduct of an event.

It can also be issued to someone whose behaviour shows he is about to commit an offence, has just committed or is committing an offence.

-- Straits Times, 14 April 2009, The Public
Order Act: What it is all about

In defending the bill, Shanmugam cited examples to show why these powers were necessary. One of his examples was

... during the Hindu Rights Action Force incident in Malaysia, when a local activist protested alone outside the Malaysian High Commission for five days, attracting large groups - including Malaysians who came over.

'In such situations, it's better that the police have the power to tell the person to stop protesting and move on if they believe that his actions could be disruptive to public order or public interest,' he said.

-- Straits Times, 14 April 2009,
Shanmugam: Don't focus on the numbers.

You know what? This example, which clearly refers to Seelan Palay's one-man protest outside the Malaysian High Commission, does not really meet the conditions as set out in the bill -- something I can attest to from first-hand observation. I went to see him to offer moral support. 

Seelan conducted a three or four-day fast by sitting on the grass verge off a quiet road. He did not interfere with any trade or business, he was not disorderly, indecent, offensive or threatening, and he was not disrupting the peaceful and orderly conduct of anybody else's event -– the stipulated conditions triggering move-on powers.

Thus, the minister's use of this incident to justify the new powers is farcical.

* * * * *

 
Two weeks earlier, parliament passed amendments to the Films Act. Martyn See has written exhaustively about it, so I shall just provide a link to his blogpost: New restrictions to Films Act introduced under the guise of liberalization.

In a nutshell, what the amendments did was to tighten the rules on any film with a political message. In effect, the permissible kind is reduced to virtually unedited footage of licensed political events.

The moment you edit the footage to sharpen a message or a point of view, the government will be able to say that it is biased, or that it is intended or likely to affect voting, both of which are grounds for bans and criminal proceedings against you.

As MP Sylvia Lim said in parliament,

To begin with, most films, political or not, carry the values of the maker or author, which may not be shared by others. Miss Tan Pin Pin, an award winning director, wrote on behalf of 10 other film-makers to the Straits Times in 2005 questioning what constitutes ‘bias’ in making films on political issues. She said, ‘all works of art are the expression of the artiste’s opinion, which may favour a particular viewpoint or argument over another’. 

This means that the ambit of what is permissible will be ambiguous and uncertain. If we are sincere about promoting diversity of opinion, why have the restriction? There is no need to treat Singaporeans like children. They can assess for themselves whether the views or messages in a film are reasonable or not. 

-- Sylvia Lim in Parliament, 23 March 2009. Full text.

The changes to the Films Act also requires that the event you record must also be legally permitted. This means that even unedited footage of acts of civil disobedience, let alone rioting (like what you recently saw of the streets of Bangkok) would land you in trouble with the law.

* * * * *

 
All this is part of an evolving strategy by the government to deal with the slightest hint of rising political consciousness among Singaporeans. The government's ideal Singapore would be one where the people trust the ruling People's Action Party to make the right decisions and to look after them.

The flip side of trust is of course the absence of a habit or interest in enquiring too deeply about how government decisions are arrived at, what assumptions used or policy goals adopted. In other words, the ordinary bloke should be politically disengaged.

Footnotes

None

Addenda

None